Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Carry_Okie

Your easy equating of the impact on the human body of what you refer to as “natural carcinogens” and what you call (but don’t limit your response to) “modern pesticides formulated to emulate naturally occurring chemistry,” leave room for about a million rebuttals in both biophysiological assessment and actual biochemistry, and holes the size of Saturn. It’s literally a matter of “where do I start”?

But if I WERE to start, it would be with your definitions of natural versus synthetic carcinogens, no doubt based on a presumption of natural analogue status based on statistical analysis of the number of structural molecular componants. And that’s not even getting into the definition of “natural.”

So yeah, you could easily be a Monsanto rep. Especially since few things in the history of humanity on this planet have killed more people than the banning of DDT, and NO company has made more money of of finding “replacements” for DDT than Monsanto - and yet you try to imply (with insults added to misdirect your utterly untenable point) that the banning went against Monsanto’s interests.


37 posted on 09/09/2012 1:27:16 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Talisker
Your easy equating of the impact on the human body of what you refer to as “natural carcinogens” and what you call (but don’t limit your response to) “modern pesticides formulated to emulate naturally occurring chemistry,” leave room for about a million rebuttals in both biophysiological assessment and actual biochemistry, and holes the size of Saturn.

Guess who funds those studies? Guess who owns the politicians directing the funding? It looks to me more like you're the potential Monsanto rep. You know, the guys who rig one set of chemicals getting band for "chlorine chemistry" when they have newly patented fluorine analogues at the ready.

But if I WERE to start, it would be with your definitions of natural versus synthetic carcinogens, no doubt based on a presumption of natural analogue status based on statistical analysis of the number of structural molecular componants. And that’s not even getting into the definition of “natural.”

About which you know nothing, unless the name "Titus Lucretius Carus" means anything to you.

Especially since few things in the history of humanity on this planet have killed more people than the banning of DDT, and NO company has made more money of of finding “replacements” for DDT than Monsanto - and yet you try to imply (with insults added to misdirect your utterly untenable point) that the banning went against Monsanto’s interests.

Go read my posts on this thread again. All of them.

39 posted on 09/09/2012 1:34:16 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson